Legislation / Court Cases

Federal Court Protects Mobile Ultrasound Facility from Elgin, IL, Zoning Restrictions

Federal Court Protects Mobile Pregnancy Services: Federal Injunction Entered to Protect TLC Mobile Pregnancy Services (TLC) from City of Elgin’s Restrictions [NRLC Editor’s note. Back in March we ran two stories about a lawsuit filed against the city of Elgin, Illinois, over a new zoning restriction which effectively prevented TLC Pregnancy Services from providing the women of Elgin, particularly high-school age girls, with free pregnancy information, testing, and ultrasound care through its mobile ultrasound facility (“Illinois Women Denied Free Pregnancy Services–Federal Law Suit Filed” and “Temporary Restraining Order issued against City in Illinois–Pregnancy Support Services Resume”). Last week more good news in the form of a federal injunction.] In an opinion which called Elgin’s “effort to curtail private entities from providing free and valuable services to its young women …ill-advised,” United States District Court Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan permanently enjoined Elgin’s code restrictions which had been used to halt The Life Center’s mobile pregnancy services. In March, the Court had found that the young women of Elgin were likely to suffer irreparable harm if Elgin’s zoning restrictions were applied to deny them access to the free services and support TLC’s mobile ultrasound facility provides. The City then filed a motion to dismiss the case, but the City’s motion was denied in its entirety in today’s order. “TLC is delighted to share this victory with the young women in the Elgin community.” said TLC’s Executive Director Vivian Maly. The opinion went on: “[I]t must be recognized that the City is preventing Life Center from being able to effectively provide pregnant women in the City with needed medical care that could identify...

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Signs Bill for Ultrasound Before Abortion

Today, Governor Scott Walker signed Senate Bill 206 (Sonya’s Law) into law. This important new law requires that women seeking abortions in Wisconsin be given the opportunity to see their unborn children through ultrasound. Just hours before Walker signed the law, the Planned Parenthood abortion business announced it would file a lawsuit seeking to stop women from seeing these ultrasounds....

Residency Programs and Right of Conscience

Residency Programs and Right of Conscience When examining OB/GYN residency programs, one often reads the following disclaimer: for reasons of moral or ethical objection, one may opt out of abortion training. But medical residents who do not provide abortions themselves are still expected to counsel patients, make referrals, and manage post-abortal complications. Is this demand for an abortion referral legal or ethical? The answer isn’t always as cut and dry as you might think. However, one thing is certain, when applying for residency, you should have this discussion with your residency program director during the interview process. This will ensure everyone is crystal clear on their expectations and prevent problems down the road. A good residency program will accommodate your conscience as a physician. Dr. McCurdy of UC Davis wrote in the Sierra Sacramento Valley Medicine 2011 publication: “To not allow the physician to act according to conscience upends the relationship with the patient. In effect, the patient becomes the physician, deciding on what care is appropriate, and the physician merely provides the necessary technical expertise. This is contrary to our historical values and endangers the patient, our profession, and society. The last century provides many examples of societies in which physicians were no more than technicians; this history should give us pause before embracing such a paradigm.” The right to refuse an abortion referral is a conscience issue. Recently Dr. Toffler of Oregon Health Science University spoke about his experience when he stopped making abortion referrals. He said, “As physicians, we are not vending machines to dispense upon request. We took an oath to do no harm and...

Knowing Your Conscience Rights / Next Generation of Pro-Life Physicians (update 10/13)

Protect Rights of Conscience Imagine that you are a healthcare professional who is convinced that life begins at conception. Imagine that your employer insists that you offer women counseling regarding abortion options and requires you to prescribe contraceptive drugs–whether or not they have an abortifacient effect. Imagine that you are being forced to dishonor your faith or give up your profession and your livelihood. Now stop imagining and realize that this scenario is actually being played out every day in the United States as people are forced to violate their sincere beliefs out of fear of losing their employment and jeopardizing their careers. Freedom of conscience and religious beliefs lies at the very heart of our Constitution. Yet this core freedom—the ability to hold personal religious beliefs and to live in accordance with those beliefs—is being threatened as never before. Medical professionals are facing increased pressure to provide abortions, contraceptives and other forms of so-called health care, even when this would violate their consciences. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has been tasked with accepting complaints from employees forced to participate in abortion (if their employer is a recipient of specific federal funding). Waiting for action from this federal agency has hardly proved an adequate safeguard of religious freedom. Ironically, it is this very same Department of Health and Human Services that has eviscerated rights of conscience for so many employers through the Contraceptive Mandate. In the name of “preventative health care,” insurers are required to provide coverage without co-pay for contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, and sterilization. Faced with violating their consciences or paying crippling fines, many employers...

Know Your Rights to Organize (2012)

Starting a student organization can be daunting. Besides deciding when you are going to meet and what your group is going to do, universities require students to follow all sorts of rules and procedures before a group can gain official recognition. Once your group is up and running, you will need money to plan events, host speakers, and advance your message on campus. This memorandum from the Alliance Defense Fund (www.AllianceDefenseFund.org) addresses your rights to form and fund a student group at both public and private universities, and your rights to promote your pro-life message on campus. Download the 3 page PDF of the memo here — http://studentsforlife.org/files/2012/04/Memo-ADF-to-SFLA-re-Rights-to-Form-and-Fund-Student-Groups.pdf [May 2, 2012,...

Influencing Public Debate for Conscience Rights / Trying to Stop Erosion of the Right of Conscience

[updated 10 Sept 11] The Case Against Pro-Life Physicians: Bias Begins at Med School Interview Are pro-life students being unfairly flagged during interviews for medical school? Imagine yourself, a senior in college, sitting in the middle of your dream medical-school interview. Because you have done your homework, the interview is going exceedingly well. You seem to have established a rapport with the interviewer, and your answers are crisp, clear and intelligent. It’s going so well that you are starting to feel confident regarding your chances of gaining admission. That is, until the interviewer hits you with this question: “Suppose a young pregnant woman and her boyfriend come to you seeking an abortion. What would you do?” What would you do? How would you answer? For pro-life medical-school candidates, there is only one answer: You counsel the couple not to have an abortion. The problem is that, in some cases, this answer could ruin the candidate’s chance of admission. It is routine for medical-school admission interviews to include open-ended questions on ethical issues. Primarily, these questions are included in the process to see if students can articulate clearly and defend adequately their thoughts on complex issues. If this were the sole reason for their inclusion, questions about abortion and abortion access could play a legitimate role in the interview process. But that is often not the intent of such questions. The reality is that many schools are using abortion-related questions to screen out pro-life candidates. This is despite the fact that federal law prohibits medical schools that receive federal funding from discriminating against candidates based upon their views on abortion....

Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court Recognizes Unborn Human Being to Be a “Child” in a Case Unrelated to Abortion

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous per curiam opinion  [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-10537.pdf ] in the Porter v. McCollum case, in favor of the habeas petition filed by a death-row inmate. Specifically, the Court ruled that the inmate was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when his counsel failed to discover significant mitigating evidence and to present that evidence at the sentencing phase of his trial. By e-mail, Walter Weber of the American Center for Law and Justice highlights an interesting phrase in the Court’s opinion: In the course of relating the criminal convict’s troubled childhood, the unanimous Court states, “Porter routinely witnessed his father beat his mother, one time so severely that she had to go to the hospital and lost a child.” Slip op. at 4. The unmistakable reference is to a miscarriage. The stage of gestation is not mentioned. Outside the abortion context, every Justice knows that a pregnant woman carries “a child.” I’ve added the italics. [Ed Whelan] [3Dec09, National Review Online, http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzU4OWEzZjZhZDgwMDAyNTk3YzI3ZGM1YjZhNmJkMDU...

Illinois Parental Notification Law on Abortion Blocked Again by Court Decision

The on again, off again nature of the Illinois parental notification law reads like the script of a soap opera because the status of the relationship between the law and the courts changes so frequently. In the latest turn of events, a circuit court judge decided to uphold a restraining order. That order prevents enforcement of the law — meant to allow parents to know 48 hours in advance when their minor daughter is considering an abortion so they can help her find positive alternatives — from going into effect until at least January. Judge Dan Riley says he’s waiting for briefs from both sides before determining whether the law should stand. Lorie Chaiten represented the American Civil Liberties Union in court in its attempt to overturn the law while Thomas More Society attorneys presented a motion to vacate the temporary restraining order. Earlier this month, Judge Riley blocked enforcement of the parental notification law on abortion just hours after a state board approved letting it go into effect. Parents in Illinois have waited for 15 years for a law to go into effect and a vote from the Illinois’ Medical Disciplinary Board made it appear that would happen. The Illinois legislature approved the law in the 1990s, but it has been held up in court waiting for the Illinois Supreme Court to issue the rules guiding the law’s implementation. After the court did its job, state officials blocked enforcement of the law with a 90-day grace period for abortion centers to became aware of it — even though similar laws have been on the books in other states...

Dominican Republic Passes Complete Abortion Ban

Last week, lawmakers in the Dominican Republic gave their final approval to a pro-life constitutional change despite fierce criticism and pressure from UN agencies and abortion advocates to defeat the measure. The Dominican Republic’s National Assembly easily ratified a revision of Article 30 in a vote of 128 in favor with 32 opposed. The article now states that “the right to life is inviolable from conception until death.” While the measure was widely supported by Dominican parliamentarians, it met with staunch opposition from international abortion proponents and even UN agencies, which are officially neutral on abortion. Last April, when the right-to-life provision was first debated, two UN officials interjected themselves into the debate. Nils Kastberg, UNICEF’s regional director for Latin America and the Caribbean, called on Dominican legislators to consider liberalizing abortion so women would not be forced into “unsafe procedures.” Kastberg also suggested that lawmakers would be “hypocrites” unconcerned with the nation’s higher-than-average teen birth rate. United Nations Program for Human Development coordinator Miguel Ceara Hatton criticized the article stating the constitutional revision encourages the incidence of clandestine abortions and maternal deaths and disregards a woman’s right to life. Hatton also took aim at the Catholic Church stating that it had “influenced in everything” and that, “for following a dogma [the Church] has become a source and a motor for social exclusion in the Dominican Republic. The dogma is placed ahead of the needs of the population, health, housing and better living conditions. ” Contrary to the positions these UN officials took, the United Nations website maintains that “the legal status of abortion is the sovereign right of...

Preliminary Injunction Granted in IL Right of Conscience Case: Pharmacists Score a Win

The circuit court in Springfield, Ill. on Friday issued a preliminary injunction in favor of two pharmacy owners who have been fighting to protect their right to conscientiously object to distributing abortifacient contraceptives. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is representing the pharmacists, Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog, in the case of Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich. The lawsuit was launched to fight against a 2005 executive order by former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich forcing pharmacists and pharmacy owners to distribute the abortifacient morning-after pill. Blagojevich defended the executive order by saying that “right of conscience does not apply to pharmacists.” The ACLJ announced the injunction as the latest victory in an ongoing effort to protect the fundamental right of pharmacists to practice their profession without having to violate their conscience. “The Attorney General’s Office has repeatedly argued that the Health Care Right of Conscience Act does not apply to the practice of pharmacy-and they have repeatedly failed,” said Francis J. Manion, ACLJ Senior Counsel. “While this is not a final decision on the merits of our lawsuit, the writing is on the wall. Our clients are entitled to run their pharmacies according to the dictates of their moral and religious beliefs. This is what the law allows; this is what the court has affirmed.” In the court’s decision, Judge John W. Belz ruled that “Plaintiffs have certain and ascertainable rights under state and federal law,” and that the law forcing them to distribute emergency contraceptives is causing the plaintiffs to suffer “irreparable harm in the form of an ongoing chill of their free exercise rights and rights...

Mexican State of Yucatan Becomes 14th to Pass Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment

Legislators also add text defending marriage The Mexican state of Yucatan became the fourteenth to pass a pro-life amendment to its constitution yesterday, adding to a wave of opposition to Mexico City’s policy of permitting and funding abortion on demand. The amendment reads, “The state of Yucatan recognizes, protects, and guarantees the right to life of every human being, expressly affirming that, from the moment of fertilization, he comes under the protection of the law, and is to be treated like a human being that has been born for all corresponding legal effects, until his natural death, with exceptions already foreseen in ordinary laws.” The state’s legislators also passed an amendment to defend the institution of marriage, defining it as “an institution by means of which a juridical union is established between a man and a woman, with equality of rights, and duties, and obligations, with the possibility of bringing about human reproduction in a free, responsible, and informed manner. “The State recognizes that it is of vital interest for society that, in the union of man and woman for procreation, limits should be established regarding age, and psychological and physical health.” The amendments were passed in response to a popular initiative by a group of organizations under the banner of the Pro-Yucatan Network. Although the group also advocated the definition of the family based on the traditional definition of marriage, legislators opted for a broader definition that includes ties based on “affinity.” Legislators also left intact the existing exceptions in the state’s criminal code for abortion, which depenalize the procedure in cases of “economic hardship” in which a...

Right of Conscience Public Comment Ends 9 April

12,000+ emails urging the HHS TO REMOVE THE RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE have been sent by pro-death groups!!! SUPPORT FOR THE RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE www.freedom2care.org Thursday, 9 April, IS the LAST DAY to contact the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS)  regarding protection of the RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE for all doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals. If the Right of Conscience is taken away, all physicians and nurses will be REQUIRED to refer for &/or participate in medication and surgical abortions. Hospitals will ALL be required to participate in abortions. This will probably also extend to pharmacists requiring them to provide mifeprex (RU-486) and also the abortifacient Plan B (Levonorgestrol/"morning-after pill").   Inform your physicians of the www.freedom2care.org website today, and ask all your friends and family to respond.   The BEST way may be this: go to www.freedom2care.org , click on "send a message to HHS," then click on "my message as a patient" or "my message as a healthcare provider," whichever you are. Type in the info, use the form letter, or type your own, fill out the contact info, and submit… THANK YOU… …FOR THEIR LIVES!! 30-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT WINDOW EXPIRES ON APRIL 9! CALL BETWEEN 9AM AND 5PM EASTERN STANDARD TIME: Comments: 202-456-1111 Switchboard: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461 AND EMAIL NOW [email protected] OR   Go to www.freedom2care.org and click on "send a message to HHS," then click on "my message as a patient" or "my message as a healthcare provider," whichever you are. Type in the info, use the form letter, or type your own, fill out the contact info, and submit. TYPE YOUR OBJECTION...

Susan B. Anthony List: Senate Vote Against SCHIP Amendment Will Lead to Abortions (2009)

A women’s group says the recent [2009] Senate vote against an amendment to the SCHIP program will lead to more abortions. The Senate rejected an amendment to make as national law a rule the Bush administration put in place allowing states to cover unborn children in the SCHIP program. During the Bush administration, President Bush displayed his concern for both mother and unborn child by putting the rule in place. Pro-life advocates had strongly supported the Bush policy, first implemented in 2002, because it promoted respect for human life and pregnant women without classifying pregnant women as children under the program. The rule allowed states to interpret the word “child” to include those between conception and birth, and 14 states have adapted their programs to include pregnant women and their unborn children under this option. Sen. Orrin Hatch sponsored the amendment to codify the Unborn Child Rule and the Senate rejected his motion on a 59 to 39 vote. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life women’s group, told LifeNews.com she’s upset that the Senate defeated the proposal. “This action suggests that 59 senators are more committed to the demands of the abortion industry than to caring for the health of pregnant women and their unborn children,” she said. Dannenfelser also said the vote will lead to more abortions and shows that President Barack Obama isn’t as fully committed to reducing abortions as he claims. “President Obama has said that he wants to reduce the number of abortions, but this misguided vote is likely to lead to more abortions. We are disappointed that President...

Ontario Doctors Association May Curtail Freedom of Conscience (9/08)

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario held a public comment period for a draft policy on conscience rights for medical doctors. Dr. Will Johnston, president of Canadian Physicians for Life, said under the new proposed policy, “Refusal on conscientious or religious grounds to refer a woman for an abortion could be deemed professional misconduct.” The new draft policy document, “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code” says “a physician who refuses to provide a service or refuses to accept a patient on the basis of a prohibited ground such as sex or sexual orientation may be acting contrary to the (Human Rights) Code, even if the refusal is based on the physician’s moral or religious belief.” As an example, the document suggests a physician would violate the Code by refusing to provide artificial procreation to a homosexual. The change is justified by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons as a pre-emptive response to potential human rights commission complaints. The new policy would seriously undermine the right of physicians to act on conscience or religious conviction – and violate the conscience rights recognized by the codes of the Canadian Medical Association. As Montreal-based physician and frequent National Post letter writer Dr. Roy Eappen says, “I am absolutely appalled that the College feels it can force me to violate my own ethics and principles.” But as Dr. Eappen wonders, what about the human rights of doctors and other medical professionals? Why must they lose their rights? The Protection of Conscience Project, a group devoted to freedom of conscience for professionals, is joining forces with Physicians for Life in...

HHS Right of Conscience Regulations Reorganized & Challenged (19/29Dec08; update 20Jan09)

Health & Human Services Right of Conscience Regulations Reorganized and Promulgated. To read the 127-page regs, visit http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2008-30134_PI.pdf (Doc. 2008-30134 Filed 12/18/2008 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 12/19/2008)   [from AAPLOG]  A final regulation protecting health care providers' conscience rights was issued December 18. The regulation clarifies and implements existing federal statutes enacted by Congress in 1973, 1996 and 2004. The Rule will be published in 19Dec08 Federal Register and will take effect 30 days after publication on January 20th, 2009 at 12:01AM (Note: the 20th is technically 32 days after publication, but Jan 18th is Sunday and Jan. 19th is a federal holiday). AAPLOG thanks Secretary Michael Leavitt for implementing this regulation. We urge the incoming Congress and Administration to honor this much-needed implementation of longstanding laws. Respect for conscience rights on abortion should be a strong point of agreement among those considering themselves `pro-life' and `pro-choice.' Yet this regulation is already under attack. A month before it was even published, pro-abortion senators had introduced a bill (S. 20) to invalidate it regardless of its content. They will surely follow through on this in any way they can. As you will recall, HHS previously issued a draft of the regulations for public comment in August, 2008.    The final regulations include HHS's response to those comments including two additions from earlier drafts – 1) HHS narrowed the number of entities who will need to provide specific certification to those with a direct connection to health care (for example an entity receiving HHS funds through LIHEAP would not need to provide certification since LIHEAP concerns energy assistance, not health...

Illinois Supreme Court Decision Supporting Constitutional Rights of Pharmacists (18Dec08)

Americans United for Life (AUL) applauds today's Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich that individual pharmacists and pharmacy owners do have legal standing to challenge a rule requiring them to dispense Plan B, which abortion activists call "emergency contraception," regardless of their religious, moral, or conscientious beliefs. The rule was originally forced upon the pharmacists and pharmacies by a 2005 emergency order of Governor Rod Blagojevich, who stated in no uncertain terms that pharmacists should either dispense the controversial drug or leave the profession.  Two lower courts had previously ruled that the plaintiff-pharmacists and pharmacies did not have legal standing to challenge the rule. Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President and CEO, stated, "This is a huge victory for the freedom of conscience of all healthcare providers.  Pharmacists now have proper recourse against a discriminatory law that would force them to check their constitutional rights at the workplace door." Mailee Smith, AUL Staff Counsel, noted, "Finally, an Illinois court got it right.  If pharmacists and pharmacy owners don't have standing to challenge a rule that unfairly targets them, who does?  People should have legal recourse when the state attempts to circumvent and even eliminate their constitutional rights." AUL provided legal support to the Plaintiffs from the initiation of the case, most recently filing an amicus brief before the Illinois Supreme Court on behalf of American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, and other medical groups.  The brief argued that the Plaintiffs' rights of conscience — specifically their rights to decline to dispense prescriptions in violation of their consciences — are guaranteed...

Pro-Life Laws & Politicians Reduce Abortions (10/08)

Dr. Michael New October 27, 2008 LifeNews.com Note: Dr. Michael New is a political science professor at the University of Alabama and holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University. He is one of the foremost authorities on how abortion laws affect abortion rates across the nation. During the past 35 years, the pro-life movement has made real progress. The number of abortions has fallen in 12 out of the past 14 years and the total number of abortions has declined by 21 percent since 1990. These gains are largely due to pro-life political victories at the federal level in the 1980s and at the state level in the 1990s which have made it easier to pass pro-life legislation. As Election Day approaches, the mainstream media is, as usual, showcasing self-identified ''pro-lifers'' who are supporting the Democratic Party's pro-abortion presidential nominee. In 2004, a number of media outlets cited an analysis by ethicist Glen Harold Stassen which claimed–wrongly–that the number of abortions had increased slightly since President Bush's inauguration in 2001. The New York Times published an op-ed by Dean Mark Roche of Notre Dame encouraging pro-life Catholics to vote for John Kerry. This year the story is similar. Former Reagan administration Assistant Attorney General Doug Kmiec and Duquesne University Law Professor Nicholas Cafardi, both of whom claim to be opponents of abortion, have received plenty of media attention for their support of Barack Obama. Their arguments are the same ones put forward in 2004. They have not improved with age. Most of these authors attempt to make one of two points: either a) that there is little that elected officials...

FOCA: An Attempt to End Debate Over Abortion (11/08)

The Freedom of Choice Act: Radical Attempt to Prematurely End Debate Over Abortion 1 Denise M. Burke AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs November 2008 Nearly two years ago, the public debate over abortion was irrevocably altered. In the landmark Gonzales v. Carhart decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and, more importantly, abdicated, at least in part, its role as the “National Abortion Control Board.” In its decision, the Court signaled an increasing willingness to blunt attempts by abortion extremists to use the federal courts to unilaterally impose their radical agenda. The immediate reaction of activists and some members of Congress confirmed this critical shift. Abortion advocates, including some members of Congress, hastily recycled the hyperbolic rhetoric of the 1970s. In one public statement after another, they condemned the decision and the Court, predicting–like modern-day Chicken Littles–that the outlawing of abortion was at hand and that women were about to be relegated to “second-class” status. For example, then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama stated, “I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.” Recognizing that the federal courts would no longer be a reliable and viable tool for actualizing their demands for unlimited and unregulated abortion, abortion supporters began to look elsewhere for the means to advance their radical agenda. In late April 2007, Obama along with Senator Hillary Clinton and others,...

FOCA: The Freedom of Choice Act (2008)

The Freedom of Choice Act: Endangering Women and Silencing the Voices of Everyday Americans By Denise M. Burke AUL Vice President & Legal Director June 2008 “The first thing I will do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” — Senator and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama July 17, 2007, Address to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund   In the days after the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortion, Senator Barack Obama, along with Senator Hillary Clinton and others, introduced the federal Freedom of Choice Act, a radical attempt to enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law, to sweep aside existing laws that the majority of Americans support — such as requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions, fully-informed consent, and parental involvement — and to prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future. More importantly, the Freedom of Choice Act is a cynical attempt to prematurely end the debate over abortion and declare “victory” in the face of mounting evidence that (a) the American public does not support the vast majority of abortions being performed in the U.S. each year and (b) abortion has a substantial negative impact on women. Thirty-five years after Roe, abortion supporters, like Senator Obama, are dismayed that abortion remains a divisive issue and that their radical agenda has not been submissively accepted by the American public. Rather than confronting legitimate issues concerning the availability and safety of abortion, they choose to blatantly ignore the concerns and interests of everyday Americans, as well as the growing evidence that abortion hurts women. In his address...

Pharmacist in California Refuses to Dispense 'the Pill' (2008)

CA PHARMACIST REFUSES TO DISPENSE OCs: Celebrates One Year of Conflict Free Pharmacy After 35 Years of Experience. "We will celebrate on June 1st, 2008 our first year of conflict free pharmacy" said Brent Watson, RPh. Pharmacy Director and owner of Central Coast Pharmacy Specialists a compounding only pharmacy in Templeton, California. The pharmacy defied Big Drug and Insurance Companies last year when they announced they would no longer take insurance or sell branded medications such as birth control pills and the morning after pill. "It's not good medicine", said Watson. According to leading authorities in the field of contraceptive technologies birth control pills can work by blocking the implantation of early human life. This is supported by the FDA required disclosures to patients taking "the Pill". According to Watson, "this puts pharmacists in direct conflict with their profession when forced to dispense against their conscience and professional promise to 'do no harm' to patients. We want patients to know we are a pro- patient, healing only pharmacy that provides compounded medications individually made to fit the specific needs of each patient one prescription at a time." Patients should ask their doctor if a compounded medication can be made to fit their unique patient needs. Often special medications are made with alternative dosing forms or without the ingredients such as dyes and preservatives that make some patients sick. "Patients who currently fill their compounded prescriptions at pharmacies that dispense birth control pills and feel uneasy with their conscience can now fill or refill their custom compounded medications at the only publicly Pro-Life Pharmacy in the State of California. We...